From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: Anant Thazhemadam <anant.thazhemadam@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
syzbot+6ce141c55b2f7aafd1c4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@gmail.com>,
linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] bluetooth: hci_h5: fix memory leak in h5_close
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 14:45:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d07b1280-7b5f-f0fd-2892-a89a95712c9b@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dfa15c3a-6081-1072-8c73-ecebc983643d@gmail.com>
Hi,
On 10/16/20 1:55 PM, Anant Thazhemadam wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 16/10/20 4:58 pm, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 10/7/20 5:48 AM, Anant Thazhemadam wrote:
>>> If h5_close is called when !hu->serdev, h5 is directly freed.
>>> However, h5->rx_skb is not freed, which causes a memory leak.
>>>
>>> Freeing h5->rx_skb fixes this memory leak.
>>>
>>> In case hu->serdev exists, h5->rx_skb is then set to NULL,
>>> since we do not want to risk a potential NULL pointer
>>> dereference.
>>>
>>> Fixes: ce945552fde4 ("Bluetooth: hci_h5: Add support for serdev enumerated devices")
>>> Reported-by: syzbot+6ce141c55b2f7aafd1c4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
>>> Tested-by: syzbot+6ce141c55b2f7aafd1c4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
>>> Signed-off-by: Anant Thazhemadam <anant.thazhemadam@gmail.com>h5_close v4
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v4:
>>> * Free h5->rx_skb even when hu->serdev
>>> (Suggested by Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>)
>>> * If hu->serdev, then assign h5->rx_skb = NULL
>>>
>>> Changes in v3:
>>> * Free h5->rx_skb when !hu->serdev, and fix the memory leak
>>> * Do not incorrectly and unnecessarily call serdev_device_close()
>>>
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> * Fixed the Fixes tag
>>>
>>> drivers/bluetooth/hci_h5.c | 4 ++++
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/hci_h5.c b/drivers/bluetooth/hci_h5.c
>>> index e41854e0d79a..39f9553caa5c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/hci_h5.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/hci_h5.c
>>> @@ -245,11 +245,15 @@ static int h5_close(struct hci_uart *hu)
>>> skb_queue_purge(&h5->rel);
>>> skb_queue_purge(&h5->unrel);
>>>
>>> + kfree_skb(h5->rx_skb);
>>> +
>>> if (h5->vnd && h5->vnd->close)
>>> h5->vnd->close(h5);
>>>
>>> if (!hu->serdev)
>>> kfree(h5);
>>> + else
>>> + h5->rx_skb = NULL;
>> Please just do this unconditionally directly after
>> the kfree_skb()
>
> Could you also please tell me why this might be necessary?
> The pointer value stored at h5->rx_skb would be freed anyways when we free h5 (since rx_skb is
> essentially a member of the structure that h5 points to).
It is necessary in the path where the struct h5 points to is not
free-ed and it is cleaner to just always do it then, as you
indicate yourself
> Also since we're performing the *if* check, the *else* condition wouldn't exactly be taxing either,
> right?
For the computer it is not taxing, but for a human reading the code
and trying to understand the flow it makes things extra complicated
unnecessarily.
> Is there some performance metric that I'm missing where unconditionally setting it to NULL
> in this manner would be better? (I couldn't find any resources that had any similar analysis
> performed :/ )
> Or is this in interest of code readability?
Yes, it is in interest of code readability?
> Also, how about we introduce a h5 = NULL, after freeing h5 when !hu->serdev?
That is not necessary, there is no reason to have that in either code path.
Regards,
Hans
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-16 12:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-07 3:48 [PATCH v4] bluetooth: hci_h5: fix memory leak in h5_close Anant Thazhemadam
2020-10-16 11:28 ` Hans de Goede
2020-10-16 11:55 ` Anant Thazhemadam
2020-10-16 12:45 ` Hans de Goede [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=d07b1280-7b5f-f0fd-2892-a89a95712c9b@redhat.com \
--to=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=anant.thazhemadam@gmail.com \
--cc=johan.hedberg@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcel@holtmann.org \
--cc=syzbot+6ce141c55b2f7aafd1c4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).